Audit of the child survival program administered by the Bureau for Food, Disaster Assistance and Crisis Management

As of 9/92, the Bureau was responsible for administering 73 active CS grants in 37 countries, with obligations and expenditures totaling $70.6 and $43.7 million respectively. The Bureau"s program is relatively small compared with A.I.D."s total allocations for CS activities. The audit is based mainly on review of the activities of seven grantees in Guatemala (including Project Hope, Project Concern, CARE, the International Eye Foundation, Foster Parents Plan, and La Leche League). Notwithstanding the apparent good motives of the PVO staffs visited in Guatemala, the audit found significant problems. All seven grantees" activities fell far short of what was intended. For example, four of the grantees were to benefit a total of 183,115 women and children, but latest estimates by the grantees indicate only 67,349 will benefit. At least three of the grantees performed activities that were outside the approved scope of work; for example, the sole purpose of one grant was to promote Vitamin A activities, yet the grantee estimates that about 30% of A.I.D. funds were spent on activities (such as immunization) which were not approved under the grant. In addition, none of the seven grantees provided performance reports that compared actual accomplishments with targets. These problems occurred primarily because the Bureau did not assign sufficient staff to monitor grantee activities or follow established internal management controls. Only two technical or management officials have been assigned for the past 2 years to monitor the Bureau"s entire CS program, and their duties were not only to monitor activities under approximately 70 ongoing grants, but also to oversee the entire ongoing proposal selection process. The staff resource problem was identified in an 8/92 evaluation of a university that had been hired to help the Office of Private and Voluntary Cooperation (PVC) manage the Bureau"s CS program. The evaluation found that the university staff had to become the institutional memory for the program, at times explaining the reason that certain procedures were adopted, giving histories of grantee performance, and acquainting new A.I.D. staff with the program. As currently staffed, PVC/CS cannot think through the rationale for the CS program, reflect upon priorities or policies, realize the broader implications of evaluations, or make program corrections based upon review of lessons learned. And, after 7 years of CS experience, the time has come for A.I.D. to determine lessons learned and apply them broadly. Recommendations address these issues.